Search

Purpose: Given the heterogeneity and improvement in outcomes for metastatic breast cancer (MBC), we developed a staging system that refines prognostic estimates for patients with metastatic cancer at the time of initial diagnosis, de novo MBC (dnMBC), on the basis of survival outcomes and disease-related variables., Methods: Patients with dnMBC (2010-2016) were selected from the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was used to group patients with similar overall survival (OS) on the basis of clinical T category, grade, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, histology, organ system site of metastases (bone-only, brain-only, visceral), and number of organ systems involved. Three-year OS rates were used to assign a final stage: IVA: >70%, IVB: 50%-70%, IVC: 25 to <50%, and IVD: <25%. Bootstrapping was applied with 1,000 iterations, and final stage assignments were made based on the most commonly occurring assignment. Unadjusted OS was estimated. Validation analyses were conducted using SEER and NCDB., Results: At a median follow-up of 52.9 months, the median OS of the original cohort (N = 42,467) was 35.4 months (95% CI, 34.8 to 35.9). RPA stratified patients into 53 groups with 3-year OS rates ranging from 73.5% to 5.7%; these groups were amalgamated into four stage groups: 3-year OS, A = 73.2%, B = 61.9%, C = 40.1%, and D = 17% (log-rank P < .001). After bootstrapping, the survival outcomes for the four stages remained significantly different (log-rank P < .001). This staging system was then validated using SEER data (N = 20,469) and a separate cohort from the NCDB (N = 7,645) (both log-rank P < .001)., Conclusion: Our findings regarding the heterogeneity in outcomes for patients with dnMBC could guide future revisions of the current American Joint Committee on Cancer staging guidelines for patients with newly diagnosed stage IV disease. Our findings should be independently confirmed.

Purpose National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend systemic staging imaging at the time of locoregional breast cancer recurrence. Limited data support this recommendation. We determined the rate of synchronous distant recurrence at the time of locoregional recurrence in high-risk patients and identified clinical factors associated with an increased risk of synchronous metastases. Methods A stage-stratified random sample of 11,046 patients with stage II to III breast cancer in 2006 to 2007 was selected from the National Cancer Database for participation in a Commission on Cancer special study. From medical record abstraction of imaging and recurrence data, we identified patients who experienced locoregional recurrence within 5 years of diagnosis. Synchronous distant metastases (within 30 days of locoregional recurrence) were determined. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with synchronous metastases. Results Four percent experienced locoregional recurrence (n = 445). Synchronous distant metastases were identified in 27% (n = 120). Initial presenting stage ( P = .03), locoregional recurrence type ( P = .01), and insurance status ( P = .03) were associated with synchronous distant metastases. The proportion of synchronous metastases was highest for women with lymph node (35%), postmastectomy chest wall (30%), and in-breast (15%) recurrence; 54% received systemic staging imaging within 30 days of a locoregional recurrence. Conclusion These findings support current recommendations for systemic imaging in the setting of locoregional recurrence, particularly for patients with lymph node or chest wall recurrences. Because most patients with isolated locoregional recurrence will be recommended locoregional treatment, early identification of distant metastases through routine systemic imaging may spare them treatments unlikely to extend their survival.

Purpose A joint American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Society for Radiation Oncology, and Society of Surgical Oncology panel convened to develop a focused update of the American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline concerning use of postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT). Methods A recent systematic literature review by Cancer Care Ontario provided the primary evidentiary basis. The joint panel also reviewed targeted literature searches to identify new, potentially practice-changing data. Recommendations The panel unanimously agreed that available evidence shows that PMRT reduces the risks of locoregional failure (LRF), any recurrence, and breast cancer mortality for patients with T1-2 breast cancer with one to three positive axillary nodes. However, some subsets of these patients are likely to have such a low risk of LRF that the absolute benefit of PMRT is outweighed by its potential toxicities. In addition, the acceptable ratio of benefit to toxicity varies among patients and physicians. Thus, the decision to recommend PMRT requires a great deal of clinical judgment. The panel agreed clinicians making such recommendations for individual patients should consider factors that may decrease the risk of LRF, attenuate the benefit of reduced breast cancer-specific mortality, and/or increase risk of complications resulting from PMRT. When clinicians and patients elect to omit axillary dissection after a positive sentinel node biopsy, the panel recommends that these patients receive PMRT only if there is already sufficient information to justify its use without needing to know additional axillary nodes are involved. Patients with axillary nodal involvement after neoadjuvant systemic therapy should receive PMRT. The panel recommends treatment generally be administered to both the internal mammary nodes and the supraclavicular-axillary apical nodes in addition to the chest wall or reconstructed breast.

Purpose: Young women are at increased risk for developing more aggressive subtypes of breast cancer. Although previous studies have shown a higher risk of breast cancer recurrence and death among young women with early-stage breast cancer, they have not adequately addressed the role of tumor subtype in outcomes., Methods: We examined data from women with newly diagnosed stage I to III breast cancer presenting to one of eight National Comprehensive Cancer Network centers between January 2000 and December 2007. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the relationship between age and breast cancer-specific survival., Results: A total of 17,575 women with stage I to III breast cancer were eligible for analysis, among whom 1,916 were ≤ 40 years of age at diagnosis. Median follow-up time was 6.4 years. In a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model controlling for sociodemographic, disease, and treatment characteristics, women ≤ 40 years of age at diagnosis had greater breast cancer mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.7). In stratified analyses, age ≤ 40 years was associated with statistically significant increases in risk of breast cancer death among women with luminal A (HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.4 to 3.2) and luminal B (HR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.9) tumors, with borderline significance among women with triple-negative tumors (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.8) but not among those with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 subtypes (HR, 1.2; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.9). In an additional model controlling for detection method, young age was associated with significantly increased risk of breast cancer death only among women with luminal A tumors., Conclusion: The effect of age on survival of women with early breast cancer seems to vary by breast cancer subtype. Young age seems to be particularly prognostic in women with luminal breast cancers., (© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

The purpose of the American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline is to provide recommendations to assist primary care and other clinicians in the care of female adult survivors of breast cancer. A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed through April 2015. A multidisciplinary expert workgroup with expertise in primary care, gynecology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, and nursing was formed and tasked with drafting the Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline. A total of 1,073 articles met inclusion criteria; and, after full text review, 237 were included as the evidence base. Patients should undergo regular surveillance for breast cancer recurrence, including evaluation with a cancer-related history and physical examination, and should be screened for new primary breast cancer. Data do not support performing routine laboratory tests or imaging tests in asymptomatic patients to evaluate for breast cancer recurrence. Primary care clinicians should counsel patients about the importance of maintaining a healthy lifestyle, monitor for post-treatment symptoms that can adversely affect quality of life, and monitor for adherence to endocrine therapy. Recommendations provided in this guideline are based on current evidence in the literature and expert consensus opinion. Most of the evidence is not sufficient to warrant a strong evidence-based recommendation. Recommendations on surveillance for breast cancer recurrence, screening for second primary cancers, assessment and management of physical and psychosocial long-term and late effects of breast cancer and its treatment, health promotion, and care coordination/practice implications are made.This guideline was developed through a collaboration between the American Cancer Society and the American Society of Clinical Oncology and has been published jointly by invitation and consent in both CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians and Journal of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission by the American Cancer Society or the American Society of Clinical Oncology., (© 2015 by American Cancer Society and American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: To evaluate the relationship between race/ethnicity and breast cancer-specific survival according to subtype and explore mediating factors., Patients and Methods: Participants were women presenting with stage I to III breast cancer between January 2000 and December 2007 at National Comprehensive Cancer Network centers with survival follow-up through December 2009. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to compare breast cancer-specific survival among Asians (n = 533), Hispanics (n = 1,122), and blacks (n = 1,345) with that among whites (n = 14,268), overall and stratified by subtype (luminal A like, luminal B like, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 type, and triple negative). Model estimates were used to derive mediation proportion and 95% CI for selected risk factors., Results: In multivariable adjusted models, overall, blacks had 21% higher risk of breast cancer-specific death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.21; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.45). For estrogen receptor-positive tumors, black and white survival differences were greatest within 2 years of diagnosis (years 0 to 2: HR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.34 to 5.24; year 2 to end of follow-up: HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.12 to 2.00). Blacks were 76% and 56% more likely to die as a result of luminal A-like and luminal B-like tumors, respectively. No disparities were observed for triple-negative or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-type tumors. Asians and Hispanics were less likely to die as a result of breast cancer compared with whites (Asians: HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.85; Hispanics: HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.95). For blacks, tumor characteristics and stage at diagnosis were significant disparity mediators. Body mass index was an important mediator for blacks and Asians., Conclusion: Racial disparities in breast cancer survival vary by tumor subtype. Interventions are needed to reduce disparities, particularly in the first 2 years after diagnosis among black women with estrogen receptor-positive tumors., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: Treatment decisions for patients with T1a,bN0M0 breast cancer are challenging. We studied the time trends in use of adjuvant chemotherapy and survival outcomes among these patients., Patients and Methods: This was a prospective cohort study within the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Database that included 4,113 women with T1a,bN0M0 breast cancer treated between 2000 and 2009. Tumors were grouped by size (T1a, T1b), biologic subtype defined by hormone receptor (HR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status, and receipt of chemotherapy with or without trastuzumab., Results: Median follow-up time was 5.5 years. Eight percent of patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative tumors were treated with chemotherapy. Fifty-two percent of those with HER2-positive or HR-negative/HER2-negative breast cancers received chemotherapy, with an increase over the last decade. Survival outcomes diverged by subtype and size, but the 5-year distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) did not exceed 10% in any subgroup. The 5-year DRFS for patients with T1a tumors untreated with chemotherapy ranged from 93% to 98% (n = 49 to 972), and for patients with T1b tumors, it ranged from 90% to 96% (n = 17 to 2,005). Patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative disease had the best DRFS estimates, and patients with HR-negative/HER2-negative tumors had the lowest. In this observational, nonrandomized cohort study, the 5-year DRFS for treated patients with T1a tumors was 100% for all subgroups (n = 12 to 33), and for patients with T1b tumors, it ranged from 94% to 96% (n = 88 to 241)., Conclusion: Women with T1a,b tumors have an excellent prognosis without chemotherapy. Size and tumor subtype may identify patients in whom the rate of recurrence justifies consideration of chemotherapy. These patients represent an optimal group for evaluating less toxic adjuvant regimens to maintain efficacy while minimizing short- and long-term risks., (© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: To provide evidence-based recommendations to practicing oncologists, surgeons, and radiation therapy clinicians to update the 2005 clinical practice guideline on the use of sentinel node biopsy (SNB) for patients with early-stage breast cancer., Methods: The American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an Update Committee of experts in medical oncology, pathology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, guideline implementation, and advocacy. A systematic review of the literature was conducted from February 2004 to January 2013 in Medline. Guideline recommendations were based on the review of the evidence by Update Committee., Results: This guideline update reflects changes in practice since the 2005 guideline. Nine randomized clinical trials (RCTs) met systematic review criteria for clinical questions 1 and 2; 13 cohort studies informed clinical question 3., Recommendations: Women without sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastases should not receive axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). Women with one to two metastatic SLNs planning to undergo breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast radiotherapy should not undergo ALND (in most cases). Women with SLN metastases who will undergo mastectomy should be offered ALND. These three recommendation are based on RCTs. Women with operable breast cancer and multicentric tumors, with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) who will undergo mastectomy, who previously underwent breast and/or axillary surgery, or who received preoperative/neoadjuvant systemic therapy may be offered SNB. Women who have large or locally advanced invasive breast cancer (tumor size T3/T4), inflammatory breast cancer, or DCIS (when breast-conserving surgery is planned) or are pregnant should not undergo SNB. These recommendations are based on cohort studies and/or informal consensus. In some cases, updated evidence was insufficient to update previous recommendations.

Purpose: Gene expression profile (GEP) testing is a relatively new technology that offers the potential of personalized medicine to patients, yet little is known about its adoption into routine practice. One of the first commercially available GEP tests, a 21-gene profile, was developed to estimate the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer (HR-positive BC)., Patients and Methods: By using a prospective registry data set outlining the routine care provided to women diagnosed from 2006 to 2008 with HR-positive BC at 17 comprehensive and community-based cancer centers, we assessed GEP test adoption and the association between testing and chemotherapy use., Results: Of 7,375 women, 20.4% had GEP testing and 50.2% received chemotherapy. Over time, testing increased (14.7% in 2006 to 27.5% in 2008; P < .01) and use of chemotherapy decreased (53.9% in 2006 to 47.0% in 2008; P < .01). Characteristics independently associated with lower odds of testing included African American versus white race (odds ratio [OR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.92) and high school or less versus more than high school education (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.76). Overall, testing was associated with lower odds of chemotherapy use (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.80). Stratified analyses demonstrated that for small, node-negative cancers, testing was associated with higher odds of chemotherapy use (OR, 11.13; 95% CI, 5.39 to 22.99), whereas for node-positive and large node-negative cancers, testing was associated with lower odds of chemotherapy use (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.17)., Conclusion: There has been a progressive increase in use of this GEP test and an associated shift in the characteristics of and overall reduction in the proportion of women with HR-positive BC receiving adjuvant chemotherapy.

Purpose: Previous studies have indicated poorer survival among women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy > 90 days after surgery compared with women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy within 90 days of surgery., Patients and Methods: Women diagnosed between 2004 and 2006 with invasive breast cancer (stages I to III) and treated with surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy were selected from the National Cancer Database (n = 107,587). We evaluated factors associated with prolonged time to start adjuvant chemotherapy (≥ 60 and ≥ 90 days after surgical resection) using multivariable log binomial models to estimate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs., Results: The average time to adjuvant chemotherapy was 41.46 days (± 24.46 days). Overall, 85.2% and 95.8% of women received adjuvant chemotherapy within 60 and 90 days of surgery, respectively. African American and Hispanic patients had higher risk of 60-day delay (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.30 to 1.41 and RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.39, respectively) and 90-day delay (RR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.44 to 1.69 and RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.26 to 1.59, respectively) compared with white patients. Insurance type, stage, comorbidity, and facility type were also associated with adjuvant chemotherapy delay., Conclusion: The majority of women in our study received adjuvant chemotherapy within the time frame (90 days) for which there is no evidence of poorer outcome. However, the rate of delay varied by patient and by clinical and facility factors. Future studies on the role of structural, physician, clinical, and patient factors in adjuvant chemotherapy delay in populations of women with higher rates of delay and potential interventions are needed.

Purpose: Breast cancer chemotherapy decisions in patients > or = 65 years old (older) are complex because of comorbidity, toxicity, and limited data on patient preference. We examined relationships between preferences and chemotherapy use., Methods: Older women (n = 934) diagnosed with invasive (> or = 1 cm), nonmetastatic breast cancer from 2004 to 2008 were recruited from 53 cooperative group sites. Data were collected from patient interviews (87% complete), physician survey (93% complete), and charts. Logistic regression and multiple imputation methods were used to assess associations between chemotherapy and independent variables. Chemotherapy use was also evaluated according to the following two groups: indicated (estrogen receptor [ER] negative and/or node positive) and possibly indicated (ER positive and node negative)., Results: Mean patient age was 73 years (range, 65 to 100 years). Unadjusted chemotherapy rates were 69% in the indicated group and 16% in the possibly indicated group. Women who would choose chemotherapy for an increase in survival of < or = 12 months had 3.9 times (95% CI, 2.4 to 6.3 times; P < .001) higher odds of receiving chemotherapy than women with lower preferences, controlling for covariates. Stronger preferences were seen when chemotherapy could be indicated (odds ratio [OR] = 7.7; 95% CI, 3.8 to 16; P < .001) than when treatment might be possibly indicated (OR = 1.9; 95% CI, 1.0 to 3.8; P = .06). Higher patient rating of provider communication was also related to chemotherapy use in the possibly indicated group (OR = 1.9 per 5-point increase in communication score; 95% CI, 1.4 to 2.8; P < .001) but not in the indicated group (P = .15)., Conclusion: Older women's preferences and communication with providers are important correlates of chemotherapy use, especially when benefits are more equivocal.

Purpose: To describe the frequency of chemotherapy use for hormone receptor (HR)-positive, lymph node (LN)-negative breast cancer from 1997 to 2004 at eight National Comprehensive Cancer Network institutions, to explore whether chemotherapy use varied over time and between institutions, and to identify factors associated with the decision to forego chemotherapy., Patients and Methods: Among women younger than age 70 years with HR-positive, LN-negative breast cancer measuring more than 1 cm, we analyzed the frequency of chemotherapy use on a yearly basis. A multivariable logistic regression model assessed the relationship between receipt of chemotherapy and year of diagnosis, institution, tumor features, and patient characteristics. Interaction terms were added to the model, and stratified analyses were conducted to further explore the determinants of chemotherapy use., Results: Fifty-five percent of 3,190 women received chemotherapy. Chemotherapy use was less common for patients with 1.1- to 2-cm tumors than for patients tumors greater 2 cm (47% v 87%, respectively; P < .01) and for women age 60 to 69 years versus women younger than age 50 years (24% v 76%, respectively; P < .01). On multivariable analysis, predictors independently associated with receiving chemotherapy included larger tumor size, higher grade, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 overexpression, younger age, and institution (P < .01 for all). Institutions exhibited dramatically different rates of chemotherapy use (from 46% to 65%) and patterns of change in chemotherapy use over time (from a 79% relative increase to a 22% relative decrease)., Conclusion: Although institutions seemed to agree that not all women with HR-positive, LN-negative breast cancer need chemotherapy, there did not seem to be consensus regarding which women should get chemotherapy. Only prospective randomized controlled trials will conclusively establish which subtypes of HR-positive, LN-negative breast cancer benefit from chemotherapy.

Purpose: The National Cancer Policy Board recommended the creation of quality measures and a national reporting system in 1999. Representatives from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) collaborated to create metrics suitable for national performance measurement., Methods: Content and methodology experts nominated by ASCO and NCCN met to select and refine metrics for breast, colon, and rectal cancer based on National Initiative for Cancer Care Quality and NCCN measures and NCCN and ASCO guidelines. Measures were selected based on their impact on disease free and overall survival, the degree to which opportunities for improvement exist, and the feasibility of data collection., Results: Three breast cancer measures and four colorectal cancer measures were chosen. Measures for breast cancer included adjuvant hormone therapy for hormone receptor-positive tumors, chemotherapy for hormone receptor-negative cancer, and radiation after lumpectomy. Colorectal measures included adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy for rectal cancer, and adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer. All but one were recommended as accountability measures and one for quality improvement (removal and examination of 12 or more lymph nodes in colon cancer). Specifications were developed for each measure using tumor registries as the data source., Conclusion: ASCO/NCCN measures can be implemented by health systems, provider groups or payors for improvement or accountability using local tumor registries to furnish data on staging and treatment.

Purpose: The National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-24 trial, published in June 1999, demonstrated that tamoxifen after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and radiotherapy for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) reduced the absolute occurrence of ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancer. We assessed the impact of B-24 on practice patterns at selected National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) centers., Patients and Methods: Tamoxifen use after surgery was examined among 1,622 patients presenting for treatment of unilateral DCIS between July 1997 and December 2003 at eight NCCN centers. Associations of clinicopathologic and treatment factors with tamoxifen use were assessed in univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses., Results: Overall, 41% of patients (665 of 1,622) received tamoxifen. The proportion increased from 24% before July 1, 1999, to 46% on or after July 1, 1999. Factors significantly associated with receipt of tamoxifen included diagnosis on or after July 1, 1999 (odds ratio [OR], 3.85; P < .0001), BCS in patients younger than 70 years (OR, 3.21; P = .0073), no history of cerebrovascular or peripheral vascular disease (OR, 3.13; P = .0071), receipt of radiotherapy (OR, 1.82; P = .0009), and previous hysterectomy (OR, 1.34; P = .0459). Tamoxifen use varied significantly by center, from 34% to 74% after BCS and 17% to 53% after mastectomy (P < .0001)., Conclusion: Tamoxifen use after surgery for DCIS at NCCN centers increased after presentation of the B-24 results. Rates varied substantially by institution, suggesting that physicians differ in how they weigh the modest reduction in breast cancer risk with tamoxifen against its potential adverse effects in this population.

Purpose: Benchmark data regarding quality measures of breast cancer management are needed. We investigated rates of radiation use after breast conservation therapy (BCT) for patients treated for ductal carcinoma-in-situ (DCIS) or invasive breast cancer at National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) centers., Patients and Methods: We studied 3,333 consecutive patients treated between 1997 and 2002 with BCT for DCIS (n = 587) or for stage I or II breast cancer (n = 2,746) in eight NCCN centers., Results: The overall rate of radiation therapy use was 91%, with a lower frequency of radiation use in DCIS versus invasive breast cancers (82% v 94%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.31; P < .0001). In a multivariable analysis of the patients with DCIS, the only factor significantly associated with lower rates of radiation use was low/intermediate grade (OR = 0.19; P = .0003). For patients with invasive breast cancer, significant factors were presence of comorbidity (OR = 0.53; P = .0005), tubular histology (OR = 0.39; P = .02), type of health insurance (P = .0072), and the NCCN institution (P = .0005). The model also showed lower rates of radiation use in patients with stage II disease who did not receive systemic therapy (OR = 0.01; P = .0001), younger patients who did not receive systemic therapy (P = .003); and older patients with stage I disease (P < .0001)., Conclusion: Radiation use as a component of BCT was high for patients seen at NCCN centers; however, there was variability in practice patterns noted across institutions. Radiation was most commonly omitted in patients with favorable disease characteristics, patients with comorbidities, and patients who also did not receive guideline-recommended systemic treatment.

Purpose: To develop a guideline for the use of sentinel node biopsy (SNB) in early stage breast cancer., Methods: An American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Expert Panel conducted a systematic review of the literature available through February 2004 on the use of SNB in early-stage breast cancer. The panel developed a guideline for clinicians and patients regarding the appropriate use of a sentinel lymph node identification and sampling procedure from hereon referred to as SNB. The guideline was reviewed by selected experts in the field and the ASCO Health Services Committee and was approved by the ASCO Board of Directors., Results: The literature review identified one published prospective randomized controlled trial in which SNB was compared with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), four limited meta-analyses, and 69 published single-institution and multicenter trials in which the test performance of SNB was evaluated with respect to the results of ALND (completion axillary dissection). There are currently no data on the effect of SLN biopsy on long-term survival of patients with breast cancer. However, a review of the available evidence demonstrates that, when performed by experienced clinicians, SNB appears to be a safe and acceptably accurate method for identifying early-stage breast cancer without involvement of the axillary lymph nodes., Conclusion: SNB is an appropriate initial alternative to routine staging ALND for patients with early-stage breast cancer with clinically negative axillary nodes. Completion ALND remains standard treatment for patients with axillary metastases identified on SNB. Appropriately identified patients with negative results of SNB, when done under the direction of an experienced surgeon, need not have completion ALND. Isolated cancer cells detected by pathologic examination of the SLN with use of specialized techniques are currently of unknown clinical significance. Although such specialized techniques are often used, they are not a required part of SLN evaluation for breast cancer at this time. Data suggest that SNB is associated with less morbidity than ALND, but the comparative effects of these two approaches on tumor recurrence or patient survival are unknown.

Purpose: There are few data on sequelae of breast cancer treatments in older women. We evaluated posttreatment quality of life and satisfaction in a national population., Patients and Methods: Telephone surveys were conducted with a random cross-sectional sample of 1,812 Medicare beneficiaries 67 years of age and older who were 3, 4, and 5 years posttreatment for stage I and II breast cancer. Regression models were used to estimate the adjusted risk of decrements in physical and mental health functioning by treatment. In a subset of women (n = 732), additional data were used to examine arm problems, impact of cancer, and satisfaction, controlling for baseline health, perceptions of ageism and racism, demographic and clinical factors, region, and surgery year., Results: Use of axillary dissection was the only surgical treatment that affected outcomes, increasing the risk of arm problems four-fold (95% confidence interval, 1.56 to 10.51), controlling for other factors. Having arm problems, in turn, exerted a consistently negative independent effect on all outcomes (P

Purpose: To revise the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for breast carcinoma., Materials and Methods: A Breast Task Force submitted recommended changes and additions to the existing staging system that were (1) evidence-based and/or consistent with widespread clinical consensus about appropriate diagnostic and treatment standards and (2) useful for the uniform accrual of outcome information in national databases., Results: Major changes included the following: size-based discrimination between micrometastases and isolated tumor cells; identifiers to indicate usage of innovative technical approaches; classification of lymph node status by number of involved axillary lymph nodes; and new classifications for metastasis to the infraclavicular, internal mammary, and supraclavicular lymph nodes., Conclusion: This revised staging system will be officially adopted for use in tumor registries in January 2003.

Objective: To conduct an evidence-based technology assessment to determine whether the routine use of anastrozole or any of the aromatase inhibitors in the adjuvant breast cancer setting is appropriate for broad-based conventional use in clinical practice. POTENTIAL INTERVENTIONS: Anastrozole, letrozole, and exemestane., Outcomes: Outcomes of interest include breast cancer incidence, breast cancer-specific survival, overall survival, and net health benefit., Evidence: A comprehensive, formal literature review was conducted for relevant topics and is detailed in the text. Testimony was collected from invited experts and interested parties. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-prescribed technology assessment procedure was followed. BENEFITS/HARMS: The ASCO panel recognizes that a woman and her physician's decision regarding adjuvant hormonal therapy is complex and will depend on the importance and weight attributed to information regarding both cancer and non-cancer-related risks and benefits., Conclusion: The panel was influenced by the compelling, extensive, and long-term data available on tamoxifen. Overall, the panel considers the results of the Arimidex (anastrozole) or Tamoxifen Alone or in Combination (ATAC) trial and the extensive supporting data to be very promising but insufficient to change the standard practice at this time (May 2002). A 5-year course of adjuvant tamoxifen remains the standard therapy for women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. The panel recommends that physicians discuss the available information with patients, and, in making a decision, acknowledge that treatment approaches can change over time. Individual health care providers and their patients will need to come to their own conclusions, with careful consideration of all of the available data. (Specific questions addressed by the panel are summarized in Appendix 3.), Validation: The conclusions of the panel were endorsed by the ASCO Health Services Research Committee and the ASCO Board of Directors.